The European imperialistic colonization in Africa was motivated by the desire to control the abundant natural resources an... ... middle of paper ... ... reasons. They wanted new land and the natural resources that can only be found in Africa, they wanted the new market opportunities that having colonies in Africa would open up to them, and the wanted to stay in competition with other European countries. The motives of the Europeans quickly deteriorated as they started exploiting the native Africans and abusing the slave trade that they had promised to abolish with the three C’s. The African people suffered a great deal as many of them were killed, harmed, or forced into slavery for the smallest civil unrest. The Europeans involved in the imperial take over lost their humanity as they started to treat fellow humans as though they were no more than cows lined up for slaughter.
Because of this takeover, imperialism brought both positive and negative effects to Africa. One major factor in beginning imperialism in Africa was the end of the slave trade because this was how Europe was making most of their money during the 18th century. If revenue was not being brought in through the slave trade, other “products” (formerly humans) had to be traded. Greed was why Europeans could overlook the “disease, political instability, lack of transportation, and the generally unhealthy climate” (Duiker & Spielvogel 620) of Africa. If some of these off-putting factors such as transportation could be changed by the Europeans occupying Africa, then why not occupy it?
The push for power was motivated by greed and an overwhelming desire to control every aspect of valuable foreign areas. One of the biggest moments in the history of colonization was the ‘Scramble for Africa’, as historians (and Professor Hopkins) refer to it as. As slaves were the biggest resource of the time, the banning of slave trade in Africa in the early nineteenth century caused European disinterest in continent that they were once heavily dependent on. Although there were localized replacements, like ivory trading, they were not as effective in keeping Europe’s interest. As a result, Africa was desperate to be relevant again, their economy depended on it.
Imperialism in the late 19th century became a competition among European countries to take control of as many areas in Africa before the others did. For the most part, France, England, and Germany competed for bragging rights to these countries. They thought at the time that the more colonies a country had the more prestigious and noble that country looked. European countries were in pursuit of demonstrating their power. Not only this, but imperialism helped build a strong economy in the mother country because they could invade their colony and strip them of their natural resources in order to produce goods with.
Britain tried not to play a part in this early scramble- being more of a trading empire rather then a colonial empire, however it soon became clear it had to gain its own African empire to maintain the balance of power. This is the direct link to Hobson’s Theory of ‘Overseas Investments’. Hobson saw the ‘greedy capitalists’ and the British Aristocracy, that he called the ‘shady elite’ to be investing into Africa to only gain personally at the start. However, when the problems began to raise the ‘shady elite’ would request the British Government to help and overtake the problems. Hobson saw the partition of Africa as deliberate British policy for benefit of elite group of 'greedy capitalist' investors.
How could they benefit from this? Slave Trade: There are a lot of causes of the scramble for Africa, and one of them was to ‘liberate’ the slaves in Africa after the slave trade ended. The slave trade was a time during the age of colonization when the Europeans, American and African traded with each oth... ... middle of paper ... ...e information I have gathered to present to you. Works Cited African History: What Caused the Scramble for Africa. Alistair Boddy-Evans, n.d.
There is an ongoing debate on how the current political and economic failures in Africa can be traced back to the advent of colonialism. There is a great deal of evidence that illustrates the impact that colonialism and foreign intervention has had a negative effect on the development of present history of Africa. This essay will attempt to examine the geographic, political and ethnic impact European colonialism has played on the development of the African, and how these contributions have put Africa on its current trajectory. Initial European interest in Africa appeared humanitarian. Many of the imperial nations seemed interested in acting on behalf of Africa, on issues ranging from the prohibition of slavery to development and infrastructure projects.
While Collins does a succinct job of examining the economic and political factors that heightened colonization, he fails to hone in on the mental warfare that was an essential tool in creating African division and ultimately European conquest. Not only was the systematic dehumanization tactics crippling for the African society, but also, the system of racial hierarchy created the division essential for European success. The spillover effects of colonialism imparted detrimental affects on the African psyche, ultimately causing many, like Shanu, to, “become victims to the white man’s greed.”
European Imperialism heavily impacted the African continent through culturally, economic, and political ideas. This era of history is heavily drenched in the aspect of ethnocentrism, which is the belief that one’s own culture is superior that of another. The Europeans colonized Africa believing that they could bring civilization, but they were often ignorant of Africa’s very complex societies. The European powers divided up the continent of Africa among themselves, without any consent from the people who actually lived there. The tribal stratification was changed to a caste system where racial, ethnic, and religious differences were of utmost importance, as delegated by European rule.
Stated blatantly, the "conqueror" is a European, and he is commanding an African to serve him. Forcing Africans into slavery certainly doesn?t justify European imperialism in Africa, however, there are many reasons as to why imperialism actually was justified. One reason, is the fact that the raw materials the Europeans took from Africa were unused. As stated in Lord Frederick Lugard's, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa, "Who can deny the right of the hungry people of Europe to utilize the wasted bounties of nature..." Lugard shows that Europe had the right to take raw materials from Africa because they were unused. This means those who argue that European imperialism in Africa was not justified because the Europeans simply took raw materials, are obviously mistaken.